If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is New Testament in Error?

If there is no son of God, as I have maintained, much of the New Testament is in error. What happens to the gospels and Paul's writings without the son of God? What happens to hundreds of years of Christian theology? What happens to the many salvation stories without the son of God? The vast amount of damage caused by such an idea is immeasurable. But what if it is true? The problem with the question is there is no evidence. Most everything about the Bible and Jesus is predicted on faith. We do know, however, based on historical records, Jesus existed. Moreover, Jews have existed and there is a nation of Israel. So, something must be going on with regard to Jews. Then, we have archaeological evidence for the existence of Jewish tribes and ancient lands occupied by God's chosen people.

I admit to also having no evidence outside of my dreams and visions posted on this forum. Also, I have no following for my religious ideas. I believe God made Jews his chosen people, and God was the OT Messiah who became Jesus. From my revelations, I know Jesus was God, and there is no son of God. Furthermore, I know God is a duality, which may explain a lot of misunderstanding about Jesus whereby he spoke about father and son. What is most interesting about prior gospels are Jesus verses about the "Kingdom of Heaven." God would, of course, speak about heaven. We don't have the complete story about Jesus because, after the early church adopted the four gospels, other gospels were destroyed, and narrative stories were added without evidence.

So, if there is no son of God, how do you interpret the gospels and Paul's writings? If you attempt to unravel those NT books without the son of God, they fall apart. What remains is Judaism. My theory about what happened is God came into the world to "give testimony" to his chosen people. Then, after his death, or murder, Jesus movement leaders rewrote the whole story with a "marketing ploy." Would Christianity have been as successful without the son of God? Probably not! God didn't come into the world to start a new religion, he came into the world to "give testimony" to his chosen people. For an accurate story of the life of Jesus (God), read Revelation, Chapter 11 about the two witnesses (duality of God), and Chapter 12 about Satan attacking God while he was in the world as Jesus. Apparently, John, the author of Revelation, believed Jesus was the son of God. However, if you factor out the idea of the son of God from Revelation, you find it to be an accurate story about humankind, God's chosen people, and world events. Revelation may therefore be regarded as more relevant for Jews, or Judaism, than for Christianity.

Revelation takes on a different meaning when references to the son of God are excluded. Assuming there is no son of God, Christianity is a pagan religion. I realized I am in hot water for proposing there is no son of God, but, if it is true, we have several hundred years of misinterpretations. If the first Beast of Revelation (Rev. 13) is Christianity, then, in reference to "One of the heads of the beast seemed to have a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast," (Rev. 13-3) we have the "son of God as the wound" in Christianity. God's prosecuted people are Jews, and Christians and Muslims are two major world religions which have persecuted God's chosen people. In the context of new meanings, the second beast (Rev. 13-11) is Islam, and the mark of the beast (666) is Allah. Both Christians and Muslims have persecuted God's chosen people.

Re: Is New Testament in Error?

Paul was dedicated to the idea of Jesus being the son of God. As an example, Paul begins Romans with a strong statement about the son of God.

“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospels of God --- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scripture regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descent of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 1: 1-4)

The problem with Paul’s statement about Jesus “the son of God” is there are no references in the Old Testament as proposed. Where in the Old Testament do you find such a statement about the son of God? I have searched, and I have found nothing. One must not, in searching scripture, confuse literal with figurative interpretations. With figurative interpretations, almost any idea can be reference depending on creative skills of the author. If you search for a literal interpretation to the son of God in the Old Testament, you find nothing! Moreover, in the Old Testament, you don't find confirmation for the statement: "the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scripture regarding his Son." Jewish prophets don't mention the son of God. So, if we find no references in the Old Testament to the son of God, why should we believe what Paul wrote?

Re: Is New Testament in Error?

God (Jesus) did not intend to start a new religion. God, doesn't micro-manage. People make freewill choices which may or may not agree with God's intentions. Followers of Jesus came up with narrative stories that changed Jews perception of Jesus. If you read gospels written prior to the NT gospels you don't find those narrative stories (Jesus is the son of God, Jesus is tempted by the devil, John baptizes Jesus, Jesus drives out devils, Jesus heals many, Jesus walks on water, etc.). Apparently, those stories were added to gain support for the Jesus movement. Here is an excellent source for origins of those ideas, The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. Revelation 11 about the two witnesses (God's duality) is the most reliable story about Jesus.

Again, there is no mention of the son of God in the Old Testament or in Jewish holy writings. In many respects, Christianity is a means by which people have maintained prejudices against Jews. Why would God take Judaism and revise it to eliminate original meanings? Satan has succeeded in assisting Christian leaders in replacing God's chosen people with Christians and his holy words with deceptive and unrelated meanings. Then, we have Islam, which is even more of an abomination for perverting God's holy words. It is interesting that Muslims primary adversary are Jews. Why would God's chosen people become the enemies of Islam? According to Revelation, Christians are the first beast and Islam is the second beast. God didn't change his mind about his chosen people, they are the Jews, and Israel is the land the Lord gave them. It is all written in the Old Testament. The New Testament contradicts God's holy words. Even more of a contradiction to God's holy words is the Koran which proclaims Allah to be God. The Lord's Old Testament Jews and Israel are surrounded by enemies. God didn't abandon his chosen people, the world has attacked, murdered, and persecuted them.

Re: Is New Testament in Error?

It is weird when theology gets messed up, anything can go wrong. Paul made theological blunders, but probable the most egregious one was when he speculated about Jesus being the "firstborn of many brothers." It puts the son of God into an orphanage with other wondering children. ha ha.

Apparently, Christians have deluded themselves into believing they are also sons of God and therefore equal to Jesus. Paul wrote concerning Jesus, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called, those he called, he also justified, he also glorified.” (Romans 29 & 30).

According to Paul, Christians are equal to the son of God. Paul gets even more ridiculous when he states, “Now if we are children, then we are heirs – heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his suffering in order that we may also share in his glory.” (Romans 8:17). One may ask: when did God conceive a son?” Isn’t God eternal? We know God create time when he created creatures. Evidently, according to New Testament authors God created the son of God when Jesus came into the world. Things really get wacky when you make up stories to explain away what really happened. The better explanation, according to my dreams, is Jesus was God and because He is a duality, followers got everything mixed up. They interpreted God’s duality as father and son. From there, the Christian train went off the track into the wilderness of make-believe. With so many Christian religious, it is difficult to know which one to believe. It makes God a crazy bunch of abstract paintings, none of which makes any sense.

Re: Is New Testament in Error?

There is absolutely no historical evidence for Joseph and Mary. What you find are what early church leaders wrote without historic affirmation. They, like NT authors, made up stories. Again, if you do serious research, you'll find prior gospels conflicting with NT gospels. Mostly, you don't find Jesus stories (narratives) in prior gospels.

Everyone should read Jesus Before the Gospels by Bart D. Ehrman. It explains how the four gospels evolved, from rumors and storytelling to gospel writing. None of the gospel authors were eyewitnesses, knew eyewitnesses, where Jewish, lived near Galilee where Jesus preached, spoke Hebrew, wrote Hebrew, or had known a follower of Jesus. And yet, they wrote as if they knew Jesus and all of his disciples. Facts are a hard thing, eventually they come around and bit you. Ehrman's book is an excellent presentation of academic studies from psychology, anthropology, and sociology about memory, nature of group memories, and oral traditions. The four gospels were written (first by Mark and ending with John) from about 65 to 110 CE. by men who gathered information from earlier gospels, rumors, oral traditions, and local Christian groups, not from eyewitnesses or other firsthand sources. By the time stories got to them, facts, and, most notably, narratives about Jesus had changed in so many different times as to seriously question the real story about Jesus.

Based on gospel stories about Jesus, it is clear that the gospel authors were Anti-Semitic. The gospels are written to blame Jews for the death of Jesus, and there is a lot of criticism in all four gospels of Jewish authorities, Judaism, and Jewish traditions. Also, the gospels portray Pontius Pilate as cooperating with the accusers of Jesus to blame Jews for his death. If you read history, Pilate was a cruel and uncompromising Roman ruler, he would not have negotiated with Jewish authorities to murder Jesus.

Now, regardless of whether he actually was/is the son of God, do you think he knew about it? There are several theories based on tests of scripture validity (which is comparing scriptures to older copies and roman records, and the Romans were good at keeping records), one conclusion which I find interesting is that Christ never claimed to be the son of God.

I have a theory. What if God, wanting to give testimony to his chosen people, came into the world as the man Jesus? So, there would be no family history!